Smith v. Franklin County

Decision Date17 October 2002
Docket NumberNo. CIV.A.01-18-JMH.,CIV.A.01-18-JMH.
Citation227 F.Supp.2d 667
PartiesLisa Carroll SMITH, Plaintiff, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky

Gregory A. Bolzle, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Louisville, KY, O. Curt Davis, Somerset, KY, for Plaintiff.

Richard M. Sullivan, Conliffe, Sandmann & Sullivan, Louisville, KY, Robert L. Chenoweth, Chenoweth Law Office, Frankfort, KY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

HOOD, District Judge.

This action is before the Court on the defendants' motion for summary judgment [Record No. 28]. Plaintiff has responded [Record No. 38], to which Defendants have replied [Record No. 59]. This matter is now ripe for decision.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Lisa Carroll Smith was incarcerated at the Franklin County Correctional Complex ("FCCC") for a ten day sentence on a misdemeanor charge of shoplifting, from December 19, 2000, to December 29, 2000. Smith indicated upon entering the FCCC that she suffered from epilepsy, asthma, and nerve damage in her spine. On the booking sheets, she reported that she was taking the prescription medications Klonopin and Dilantin, among the other drugs, and that she would suffer seizures if not timely provided these medications. She also reported that she took the hydrocodone to control pain, as needed. Plaintiff has testified that she told the admitting officer that she would need to be taken to a hospital in the event that the FCCC was unable or unwilling to provide her the medication that she needed. According to Smith, an officer present at the time retorted, "We'll take you to the hospital if we want; if we don't, we won't." (Smith depo. at 36.)

Plaintiff describes how her medications were confiscated by the FCCC nurse, Sally Maxwell, upon her admission to the facility. Smith has testified in her deposition that she was carrying only Klonopin, Prilosec, and hydrocodone with her when she entered the facility. The FCCC's admission sheet reflects that she had five bottles of medicine with her upon admission. Defendants state and Plaintiff does not contest that her prescription Dilantin, Trazadone, and Paxil were at her home. She brought with her an outdated prescription for the drug Prilosec and was told she could not have outdated medication dispensed to her while incarcerated. Smith has testified that she did not know whether or not the hydrocodone was outdated, but it was also seized. Plaintiff states that at the time she had been prescribed Klonopin for treatment of a seizure disorder but was informed she could not take it while incarcerated as it was a narcotic. The Klonopin was also seized and stored in her property box. Plaintiff also testifies that Maxwell told her she would not be permitted to take her anti-anxiety medications, Trazadone and Paxil, as prescribed while incarcerated. Plaintiff was further informed that in the event she needed to discuss something with the Maxwell she would need to fill out a medical request.

On December 19, 2000, Smith submitted a medical request form stating that she was "not being given meds for seizures." She was seen by the FCCC nurse, Defendant Sally Maxwell, on December 20, 2000. Maxwell indicated in her notes concerning the visit that someone was to bring Smith's Dilantin, her seizure medication, to her from home. Plaintiff has stated that Maxwell told her that, with regard to her medication, that it did not matter what Smith's doctor ordered, it was her (Maxwell's) decision and "that was that." (Smith depo. at 45 & 81.)

On December 21, 2000, Smith filled out an Inmate Grievance form complaining that she would like to be given her medicines as prescribed, stating the name and phone number of the prescribing physician. The FCCC officer who reviewed the grievance form then informed Smith that the grievance process was not the appropriate forum for medical requests and that a medical request to be seen by the nurse would need to be submitted. The rejection included the comment "[a] grievance cannot direct or override a medical decision."

Smith then submitted a Medical Request form complaining that she felt "funny dizzy" and was seeing "specks floating" around her and stating that she needed her blood pressure checked. Smith did not mention her medication in the request. Also on December 21, Maxwell spoke with Smith's family physician, Kenneth Hines, who informed Maxwell that Smith was to receive 100 mg of Dilantin in the morning and 200 mg in the evening.1 He also described the other medication he had prescribed Smith, Klonopin, Trazadone, and Paxil, and their dosages. Smith's Medication Log Sheet from her time at the FCCC states that she began receiving Dilantin on the evening of December 20, 2000, but Smith denies receiving any Dilantin until December 21, 2000, the date she believes it was delivered to the FCCC by a friend.

Defendant Maxwell saw Smith on December 22, 2000, and indicated in her notes that she had checked Smith's blood pressure and that Smith requested that she be allowed to take her Dilantin partially in the morning and partially in the evening. Smith denies having made this request. However, from the evening of December 22, 2000, her Medication Log Sheet indicates that Smith received both her morning and evening does of Dilantin until her release on the morning of December 29, 2000.

On the morning of December 22, Plaintiff alleges she was not provided a dosage of Dilantin and that Maxwell denied her medication because she had not taken a full 300 mg dose on the evening of December 21. Prior to her incarceration, Plaintiff states that she took three 100 mg tablets of Dilantin daily, one in the morning and two in the evening and that on the evening of December 21 she took only one 100 mg tablet because she was concerned about the effect a heavy dosage might have considering the alleged two-and-a-half day deprivation of the Dilantin.

On the evening of December 22, 2000, two FCCC officers were called to Smith's cell on a report that she was having a seizure. Smith states that at 7:00 p.m. she suffered one or two seizures. The officers stood on either side of her bunk until her body quit seizing and then moved her to a mat on the floor. Additional mats were placed on each side of her to prevent injury in the event she had another seizure. Smith has testified that at this time she requested to be taken to a hospital and was told that such a decision could be made only by the nurse who was not present at that time.

Smith further alleges that no medical staff was available in the FCCC over the ensuing weekend. As her seizure had occurred on a Friday, Smith submitted another Medical Request form on Monday, December 25, 2000, requesting that her blood pressure be taken and indicating that she had a rash on her left hand. She stated on the form that she needed to discuss something important with the nurse. Pam Ranquillo responded, taking Smith's blood pressure reading, weighing her, and recommending a lotion for the rash.2 Smith alleges that this examination did not occur until December 27. Ranquillo has stated that she did not note anything in Smith's appearance that led her to believe she was not doing well and that Smith did not indicate anything regarding a seizure disorder.

However, Smith alleges that Ranquillo directed that Plaintiff be taken to a hospital immediately but that a corrections officer in attendance responded that it "made no sense" to take her to a hospital as she had only two days left in her sentence. (Smith depo. at 77-78.) Smith further states that she asked numerous jail employees to take her to the hospital and no one complied with her request. Plaintiff also complains that she experienced various manifestations of physical illness during the period between her seizure(s) on December 22 and her release on December 29, including dizziness, vomiting, and diarrhea.3 Further she complains that she experienced severe mental and emotional distress due to her lack of treatment.

Plaintiff defines the policy, custom, and practice at the FCCC during her incarceration as being the minimization of "expense of attending to inmate medical needs." Plaintiff alleges that the Jail was underfunded, that a doctor visited the Jail only once a week as a result, and that the nurse was to deal with those incidents arising at other times. Further, Plaintiff alleges that officers had no medical training.

During Plaintiff's incarceration, Defendant James Kemper, Jr., had no direct contact with Smith or conversations with staff members regarding her nor did he have knowledge of any situation related to her medication. Kemper would have reviewed any appeal of a grievance Smith might have filed, but Smith filed no such appeal during her incarceration.

Kemper has stated that due to underfunding, the protocol was to convince an inmate to wait until the doctor's next visit to the jail except in medical emergencies and that he did not know whether his officers had received any training to distinguish when a seizure might present a medical emergency. (Kemper depo. at 11, 54-55.) Kemper did read the report prepared by a responding officer after Smith's seizure, and he has testified that the officers' response was typical and appropriate for unless an inmate's seizure is severe, the officers are to make the inmate comfortable and take measures to prevent the inmate from self injury. Further, Kemper states that Plaintiff was treated no differently than other inmates having seizures at the jail, which occur "quite often." (Kemper depo. at 52.)

Hines has stated that Smith may suffer seizures as a result of heightened anxiety and stress. Maxwell has stated that she was not aware of this correlation and that she could have ordered Plaintiff's anti-anxiety medications herself during the incarceration period had she wished. However, Plaintiff was provided no anti-anxiety...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Webb v. Jessamine Cnty. Fiscal Court
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
    • August 5, 2011
    ...As with any human condition, however, developments that “require immediate attention” can arise. Id. (quoting Smith v. Franklin Cnty., 227 F.Supp.2d 667, 677 n. 10 (E.D.Ky.2002)); see also Coleman v. Rahija, 1996 WL 939219, at *6, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21702, at *17–18 (“[P]regnancy is not ......
  • Williams v. City of Stanford, Kentucky
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
    • April 9, 2021
    ..."is based on a balancing of the interests involved: ‘judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’ " Smith v. Franklin Cty. , 227 F. Supp. 2d 667, 679 (E.D. Ky. 2002) (quoting id. ). Here, those interests favor retaining jurisdiction. This matter has been pending for nearly 13 month......
  • Gibson v. Yaw
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • April 7, 2023
    ... ... violate federal law.”); Smith v. Freland, 954 ... F.2d 343, 347-48 (6th Cir.1992); Barber v. City of ... Salem, ... medical needs.” Blackmore v. Kalamazoo County , ... 390 F.3d 890, 895 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Estelle , ... 429 U.S. at 104) ... “immediate” attention. Id. (citing ... Smith v. Franklin County , 227 F.Supp.2d 667, 677 n ... 10 (E.D. Ky. 2002) (citations omitted)). By example, ... ...
  • Blackmore v. Kalamazoo County
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • December 7, 2004
    ...attention."). In addition, lower courts within this Circuit have adopted this obviousness rule. See, e.g., Smith v. Franklin County, 227 F.Supp.2d 667, 677 n. 10 (E.D.Ky.2002); Bowman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 188 F.Supp.2d 870, 885 (M.D.Tenn.2000), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 350 F.3d 537 (......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Smith v. Franklin County.
    • United States
    • Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 25, February 2003
    • February 1, 2003
    ...District Court EX-OFFENDER PLRA -- Prison Litigation Reform Act Smith v. Franklin County, 227 F.Supp.2d 667 (E.D.Ky. 2002). A former county jail inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against a county, alleging Eighth Amendment and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) violations. The distr......
  • Smith v. Franklin County.
    • United States
    • Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 25, February 2003
    • February 1, 2003
    ...District Court CLAIMS PLRA -- Prison Litigation Reform Act Smith v. Franklin County, 227 F.Supp.2d 667 (E.D.Ky. 2002). A former county jail inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against a county, alleging Eighth Amendment and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) violations. The district c......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT